mind, I used both qualitative and quantitative approaches so as to increase the validity, credibility and reliability of the research.
4.2.2: Quantitative Approach
The study employed the quantitative method because it quantifies the problem by generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into useable statistics. In the present research, the quantitative approach was used to obtain a general understanding of the magnitude of the problem (floods and droughts), to understand the role of social networks in enhancing people’s resilience to floods and droughts and to have a general understanding of the basis of people’s resilience to these disasters. However, the quantitative approach has limitations in that it does not provide detailed information about people’s resilience to disasters. Accordingly, the findings from this method were corroborated with those from the qualitative approach to increase the reliability and validity of the results.
4.3: Data collection tools
the people in Chadereka and Kapembere in response to floods and droughts. The questionnaire also provided information on how people’s livelihoods are affected by these natural disasters.
Simply put, the questionnaire allowed for the gathering of information such as the general socio-economic and demographic characteristics of households, impacts of floods and droughts, coping and adaptation strategies. The questionnaire was administered in order to obtain the local community’s opinions about floods and droughts and household information such as source of income, age and the period in which the respondent had stayed in the Muzarabani area.
The questionnaires made use of pseudo-names so that the respondents would not feel uncomfortable to provide answers to the questions. After designing the questionnaire, pre-tests were made to check for mistakes and to ascertain whether the respondents would face problems in responding to it.
4.3.2: Focus Group Discussions
Denscombe (2007: 115) and Anderson (1990: 241) say that a focus group discussion consists of “a small group of individuals (usually between six and nine in number) with certain characteristics, who are brought together by a trained moderator [researcher] to explore attitudes, perceptions, feelings and ideas about the given topic”.
Focus group discussions allowed “for a variety of points of view to emerge and for the group to respond to and discuss views” (Lewis et al, 1997: 233). Different groups “generated and responded to a number of ideas (ibid: 233) and these helped in understanding and exploring more key themes. According to Stewart and Shamdasani (1990: 140), focus group discussions provide a rich detailed set of data about feelings and impressions of people in their own words”.
Respondents provided vital data for the success of the research as the design of the focus group discussion “sought to provoke discussion and simulate people into making explicit their views, perceptions, motives and reasons” (Punch 2005: 171). Focus Group Discussions of about 8-10 respondents was conducted with the most vulnerable residents in the area. These FGDs were divided into four cohorts by status and these are:
- Single headed households (females and males) - The elderly (males and females)
- Heads of child- headed families (males and females) and - Women who have stayed in the area for more than 10 years.
According to Flich (2002: 43), it is “more appropriate to organise FGDs with respondents of different characteristics instead of friends or those who know each other well because the level of things taken for granted will be higher in the latter”. Hence, respondents were mixed from different villages (child heads, elderly or women) as long as their status were the same In each cohort, two FGDs were conducted per ward and there were 8 FGDs per ward. An average of 162 respondents were chosen to participate in FGDs. In total, there were 16 focus group discussions that were conducted in both wards. These provided information on how vulnerable residents are coping, their experiences in the face of floods and droughts and different types of Social Capital employed by them. Respondents were purposively selected with the help of Non-Governmental Organisations such as the Red Cross Society and World vision, Help from Germany who are working with people in dealing with natural disasters such as droughts and floods.
Focus group discussions complemented the household survey. Lung and Livingstone cited in Flich (2002: 21) note that “FGDs generate diversity and differences either within the groups or between so it reveals the dilemmatic nature of the everyday practices”. This enabled the researcher to obtain rich and unanticipated information which is also vital for the research.
Furthermore, the strength of this data collection tool lies in its ability to mobilise participants to respond to and comment on one another’s contributions. In that way, statements are
“challenged, extended, developed, undermined or qualified in ways that generate rich data for the researcher” (Willig, 2008: 30).
4.3.3: Observations
Marshall and Rossman (1989: 79) defined observation as the “systematic description of events, behaviours and artefacts in the social setting chosen for the study.” It is actually a qualitative method that has its roots in traditional ethnography. Under this research tool, the information is “sought by way of investigators’ own direct observation without asking from respondents”
(Kothari, 2004: 96). The reason why the study adopted this method is that “subjective bias is eliminated if it is done accurately” (Kothari 2004: 96). Moreover, information obtained under this method relates to what is happening and it is independent of respondents’ willingness to respond and as such, it is relatively less demanding of the active cooperative on the part of respondents as happens to be in the interview” Kothari 2004: 96). The researcher observed
their farming lands, gardens, how they fed livestock as well as how they interacted in their communities as they were responding to the 2016 drought. In fact, I observed what respondents were saying and what they said they do. For that matter, I had to go to the shops (Chadereka shops) in the evening where the majority of female heads, young girls and men go.
Observations helped in having access to the context and meaning surrounding how most residents (especially the most vulnerable) respond to floods and droughts in the area. It was also observed that there is massive cutting down of trees for different purposes as shall be highlighted in the following chapters on strategies that are being employed by the local people as well as the basis of people’s resilience to disasters.
Nine months were spent in Muzarabani District, observing how vulnerable residents are utilising Social Capital to cope with droughts and floods. Five vulnerable residents (in each ward) whose livelihood activities were frequently observed in their own environment were chosen. It was imperative to resided in Muzarabani to gain first hard experience of the phenomena in the area of study. Field notes were documented during the period of stay in the area and broad questions were also asked for comprehensive understanding of how the community is responding to floods and droughts as well as how people are resisting the effects of these natural disasters. The questions which were asked, include how people are coping with droughts and floods and what kinds of crops they grow. I also observed how people are making use of Social Capital and social networks to increase their resilience to floods and droughts.
Field observation was employed to verify responses obtained from key informant interviews and focus group discussions. Five respondents that are the female household heads and child heads of household were observed.
4.3.4: Transect Walks
My observation was strengthened by transect walks. I defined transect walks as a systematic way of collecting data by walking across the area under study together with some local residents taking notes, observing, listening and asking questions. I conducted my transact walks with Agricultural Extension Officers and NGO officials in each ward and with the local people.
With Agricultural Extension Officers, we visited gardens, fields (for both ordinary people and the most vulnerable groups. With Agricultural Extension Officers, I had one full day visit in each ward. With NGOs officials, I also had an intensive full day visit in each ward. In Kapembere, I spent time with a member from SAT and in Chadereka I walked around with a
member from Help from Germany. With the local people, I had four full days visiting the most vulnerable groups in each ward (Chadereka and Kapembere). All in all, I had 12 full days of transact walks. In addition, I also solicited more information in Chadereka when I was attached to Red Cross. I was able to observe and ask questions pertaining to how they were coping to floods and droughts and how they were making use of their social networks to sustain themselves under harsh conditions that were being imposed by floods and droughts in the area.
During transact walks in both Chadereka and Kapembere, I was also able to take notes, observe trees, land use, rivers and their interactions. Transect walks helped me to validate some information that was provided by research participants and was able to observe people’s activities, strategies, interactions and other physical conditions that influenced issues that were under investigation.
4.3.5: Key Informant Interviews
This method involves interviewing a “selected group of individuals who are likely to provide needed information, ideas, and insights on a particular subject.” (Kumar, 1989: 1 and Seidman 2006:15). Such informants are selected because they possess information or ides that can be solicited by the researcher (Kumar 1989: 1). Because information comes directly from knowledgeable people, key informant interviews often provide data and insight that cannot be obtained with other methods (ibid: 1). Early pioneers of ethnography such as Malinowski and Mead used unstructured interviews with local key informants. Thus, it was an ethnographic method that was originally employed in the field of cultural anthropology and is now used more widely in other branches of social sciences research.
Key informant interviews were conducted with people in key positions. These were individuals who interacted with the community in their day to day activities. These included two Grain Marketing Board (GMB) officials in the district, two field officers from NGOs working with residents, two Agricultural Extension Officers, two Heads of schools in each ward, two health workers and two officials of the Civil Protection Unit (CPU). These were purposively selected.
Two village heads were randomly selected together with the chief, councillor in each ward, the District Administrator and Member of Parliament (MP) for Muzarabani District. These were asked questions that provided information on how residents’ livelihood activities were affected by droughts and floods and adaptation strategies that are being employed by vulnerable groups in the area. An interview guide was used as a data collection tool to ask detailed questions.
Below is the table that shows research objective and methods of approach used in the research.
Table 4.1: Research Question and Methods Matrix
Research objective Methods
To understand the role of Social Capital in enhancing community resilience and their adaptive capacity to natural disasters.
Through focus group discussions, key informant interviews and observations (which are phenomenological approaches) it was easy to comprehend the role that Social Capital is playing in enhancing the resilience of the community to floods and droughts.
To understand the effects of floods and droughts on residents’
livelihoods and food security.
Focus group discussions, observations, discussions, diagrams and story-telling with the most vulnerable people during transect walks helped in the understanding of the effects of floods and droughts on food and livelihood security.
To examine residents’ perceptions on droughts and floods.
Focus group discussions and questionnaires helped in soliciting the information on people’s perceptions on floods and droughts in the area
To document community-based strategies utilised by women, child headed families and the elderly to improve their livelihood and food security in the face of floods and droughts.
Focus group discussions, key informant interviews and observation were very critical in gathering this information. Detailed information was gathered as respondents would explain in detail their coping strategies and their facial expressions aided in understanding how they were coping.
To explore different types of Social Capital that exist in the study area, especially with regard to household resilience to disasters.
Questionnaire, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and observations helped in comprehending the nuances and degrees to which people relied on
Social Capital for their day to day survival.
To comprehend the basis of residents’ resilience to floods and droughts and the extent to which vulnerable groups rely on Social Capital.
Triangulating focus group discussions, questionnaire, observations and key informant interviews enabled me to have a deep appreciation of the basis of people’s resilience to floods and droughts in Muzarabani.
To examine the repercussions of Focus group discussions and key informant interviews residents’ strategies on the helped me to understand the repercussions of community’s institutional residents’ strategies on community institutional
structures. structures.
Source: Generated by Rosemary Kasimba
During Focus Group discussions and transect walks, the following techniques were used to collect data; wealth ranking and analysis, gender analysis, and social mapping. Under wealth ranking, respondents were asked to describe the rich, poor and the very poor basing on asset ownership, type of food and house among others. This helped in comprehending how vulnerable the most vulnerable groups were to floods and droughts. It also helped me to understand factors that influenced their survival strategies. On gender analysis, participants were asked to list activities and explain whether they were men’s or women’s roles or they were shared. This enabled me to reflect on how women and men allocated their labour to livelihood strategies and how vulnerable they were to floods and droughts. The technique also helped in the understanding of how the resources and assets were being controlled by men and women. Under social mapping whereby participants were asked to draw a sketch map which shows the number of households in the community, natural resources,shopping centre, clinics, schools, water source and where people fetch firewood. The technique showed the spatial distribution of resources and services for different groups of residents in the community.
In addition, my approach to data collection is related to the one that Philip (1998) calls the multi-methods approach. “This is defined as the situation in which a number of complimentary methods are employed to address different facets of the same research question from different perspectives” (ibid: 268). Thus, to understand the role that Social Capital plays in enhancing the resilience of the community, a questionnaire, observations, focus group discussions, transact walks and key informant interviews were employed.